Spin Partnership Promise

Both cities and the operators have a similar mission - to provide sustainable, safe, and enjoyable forms of transportation to people

What we can also agree on - the basics of how cities and operators need to work together

What we can agree on They need to share data in a way that protects privacy and mitigates exposure to breaches They need to agree upon riding and parking rules They need to establish uniform enforcement practices They need to set rules around hardware and product consistency They need to share revenue in a sustainable way that ensures a business model the community can depend on long-term They need to provide transportation access to underserved people

Friction We agree we need to share data - but not always what data to share or where it’s stored We agree that money needs to go toward infrastructure - but not precisely how much, where it comes from, and where it goes to We agree riders need to be safe - but we don’t agree on what policies and enforcement methods can actually achieve that

Political Reality Rapid change in many cities History of interactions between cities and tech Regulations on new mobility shaped by multiple actors Perception of political risk when adopting new innovations

Some regulatory approaches deter new mobility operators

Cities and operators need to empathize and compromise There will always be push and pull between cities and private companies - that’s just the reality of our working relationship But it doesn’t have to be confrontational or contentious. Reasonable caps on the scooter fleets. Tie revenue sharing to usage, i.e. rides not scooters. Create reasonable equity requirements - deployment/rebalancing goals in underserved communities. Data driven evaluation Frequent communication